Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
I'm on HIVE now, https://hive.blog/hive-168088/@logiczombie/total-anarchy
It's a clone of STEEM, but with no "owner".
Created:
-->
@Athias
Not necessarily. One could argue in a pragmatic sense the utility of rights without a durable enforcement mechanism, but sustenance of those rights are primarily based and contingent on the examination of the human condition, not the capacity to prevent or end the violation of said rights.
Here's the crux,
Is the protection of guaranteed "rights" the responsibility of the state (community) or do you believe the protection of guaranteed "rights" is the responsibility of each individual?
(IFF) you are responsible for protecting your own "rights" (THEN) you effectively have no "rights".
You're conflating "rights" with "effective control" as demonstrated in the response of your counterpart from your blog:What you're saying is not true. If I steal your thing, it does not become not your thing because you did not enforce the possession of that thing. Something can be wrong, even if it happens.
(IFF) ownership is NOT determined by legal status (THEN) all ownership claims are disputes that can ONLY be solved by consensus, coercion, or brute force.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Any reference to motives is an ad hominem attack.
Any general reference to motives is an indirect ad hominem attack.
Created:
-->
@simplybeourselves
You asserted, "ROCK = ROCK, THEREFORE ROCK EXISTS".No, I didn't.
Ok, do you think it would be fair to say you asserted,
ROCK = ROCK, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT HUMANS CAN DETECT IT?
Which is essentially exactly the same thing?
I'm only paraphrasing your claims in order to give you a chance to clarify your intention.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I actually noticed that when users stop competing in the Debates section yet remain on the site, you can actually see the hostility and urge to debate culminate within them from their Forum posts.
Thanks for the dime-store-psychoanalysis (ad hominem).
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
@PressF4Respect
@Jeff_Goldblum
@User_2006
For example,
The debate resolution is "Science is not objective."
This debate will follow the 3 rules of Civil Debate. - https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/376
Civil Debate - Rule One: You cannot redefine truth.
Civil Debate - Rule Two: Do not disqualify your opponent.
Civil Debate - Rule Three: Only your opponent can award points.
Each participant will award and/or deduct up to 6 points to their opponent per round with the stipulation that points can never go below zero. The judge will award "arguments" (3 points) to the participant with the highest points tally at the end of the debate. In the event of a tie, no vote will be registered by the judge.
First round will be PRO's opening argument and definitions and CON's opportunity to challenge definitions and present counter-arguments.
Second round will be PRO optionally awarding points to CON for round one and modifying arguments to address concerns identified by CON and CON optionally awarding points to PRO for their response and modifying arguments to address PRO's points.
Third round will be the same as the second round with the addition of closing arguments.
Fourth round will be for points assignment/deduction and tally only.
If points are awarded or deducted (including a note for "no points"), CON will note points in the same round and PRO will note points at the beginning of the round following the arguments/comments that are being judged.
Created:
I'm suggesting that if you believe in fundamental, inalienable human rights (THEN) you must also believe in some reliable and durable enforcement mechanism that protects those rights.
Otherwise, you're "rights" are going to be stripped from you.
What you're saying is not true. If I steal your thing, it does not become not your thing because you did not enforce the possession of that thing. Something can be wrong, even if it happens. There are consequences for actions as seen in natural law. Some call it karma. You do good and good happens to you, generally speaking. Rights do not come from people and are not enforced or protected by people.
"inherent" "objective" "morality" is a pervasive myth (brainwashing) that turns our natural instincts (core family dynamic) against our fellow man and twists them in favor of those who hold the levers of power.
It's a con-game that saves them enormous amounts of time and money enforcing their will.
When our owners violate "inherent" "objective" "morality" and we are outraged, but powerless, and our screams of protest are silenced by a boot on our neck (the boot of a fellow peasant) we comfort ourselves with this idiotic myth, "THEY WILL SUFFER IN HELL", and our owners laugh all the way to the bank.
Click to watch 3 minutes,
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
Created:
-->
@simplybeourselves
No, to say that a thing is what it is is not the very definition of naive realism.
The idea (faith) that "things exist independently of evidence" is the very definition of "naive realism".
I didn't say anything analogous with GOD = GOD therefore God exists. And that isn't naive realism either. That's just an invalid inference.
You asserted, "ROCK = ROCK, THEREFORE ROCK EXISTS".
And furthermore you strongly implied that, "(ANY SPECIFIC WORD) = (ANY SPECIFIC WORD), THEREFORE (ANY SPECIFIC WORD) EXISTS" is a necessarily valid claim (tautology).
I didn't make any argument at all. I just tried to get you to acknowledge that tautologies are necessarily true.
And I agree with you that tautological statements are necessarily "true", I simply disagree with you that circular logic qualifies as "tautological".
Case in point, GOD = GOD, THEREFORE GOD EXISTS.
All terms contained within the statement (claim) must have EXPLICIT definitions.
But you don't seem to understand what a tautology is (just like you don't seem to understand what naive realism is either.
By all means, please make your preferred definitions EXPLICIT.
Nor do you seem to understand the difference between knowability and truth or knowability and existence).
(IFF) a claim is unverifiable (unfalsifiable) (THEN) it cannot be considered to be "true".
(IFF) a phenomenon (or object) is unverifiable (unfalsifiable) (THEN) it cannot be considered to be "real".
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Ok, so what if the troll were to ALWAYS give out points to seem more open-minded? It doesn't affect their ELO whatsoever, and it would make more people want to debate them, so naturally, they would want to give out points ALL the time?
You could have the option to preemptively disqualify anyone with an imbalanced ratio greater than 60/40 or 40/60.
Someone with a near 50/50 ratio would seem to be a fair (ideal) opponent.
A "troll" is by definition myopically selfish.
I have trouble imagining a "troll" just handing out points like candy.
I think I'd probably be the most generous, and even I wouldn't award more than 2 points per debate to someone obviously stone-walling (unless I really thought they made excellent arguments and or critiques).
And if I found myself being showered with points with little or no constructive feedback, I'd likely avoid that particular participant in the future.
The CIVIL DEBATE framework has built-in incentives for participants to sharpen the communication skills of their opponents.
Most people are loathe to admit when someone makes a "good point", so I believe this natural impulse would mitigate the "damage" of a rare "debate Santa Claus" (and they'd be easy to spot because of their CIVIL DEBATE ranking ratio (323/22, OUTbound/INbound).
Also, in the absence of any "win/loss" leaderboard and just pure scoring, it would disincentivize "gaming the system" just to get "wins".
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I have said before that I think any forfeit should automatically end the debate with a loss.
I agree.
Lastly, all creative debates, rap debates, non-debate debates, etc should have a "dogfight" category which would replace winner selection. These debates only come in odd numbers 1,3,5 rounds and voters pick winners by rounds with very short (less than 100 character)explanations.
These should be unranked (from ELO).
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Do you believe that "objective truth" is "truly true" independent of any form of human verification?Yes but for humans to find that to be the case they would have to verify it.
So, in PURELY PRACTICAL TERMS, all "truth" must be 100% verifiable by empirical evidence and or logical necessity.
This renders "objective truth" a meaningless abstraction.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
PressF's main concern was that people might not be willing to give points even if they know that their opponents argument is clearly superior due to being dishonest. My main concern would be people who have a clearly inferior argument but honestly do not even realize it due to being...
That's the entire challenge.
Let's not rush-to-disqualify (ad hominem) everyone who fails to recognize our obvious individual genius, dismissing them as "crazy, stupid, evil, dishonest, and or intellectually blind" and "a lost cause" or "human trash" or "trolls".
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
@PressF4Respect
@Jeff_Goldblum
@User_2006
I suppose that there are merits to your system, though it will need some tweaking to make it relatively troll-safe.
Let's look at this from the perspective of a "troll".
Troll says, "I'm going to enter a bunch of CIVIL DEBATES and never give out any points and I'll rocket to the top of the leaderboards and everyone will think I'm awesome!!"
However, there is no leaderboard or win-ratio, so that sorta takes the wind out of their sails.
And in practice, if the troll fails to GIVE any points for round one, they might get a participation point from a generous opponent.
And if the troll fails to GIVE any points for round two, they still might get a participation point from a generous opponent.
And if the troll fails to GIVE any points for round three, even an extremely generous opponent will probably consider a 2 point lead is generous enough.
So the troll ends up with a CIVIL DEBATE rank of 0/2 which is "extremely impressive" (probably not the ego boost they were hoping for) and is a direct reflection of their debating style for all to see.
ON THE OTHER HAND, if you have honest opponents giving constructive feedback by awarding up to 3 points per round, after one debate, your CIVIL DEBATE rank could be something more like 6/5 or 3/4. Compared to a 0/2, that seems like a much better payoff for roughly the same effort.
When I look at ELO, it doesn't tell me anything about the style or tactics that person uses to achieve such a high (or low) score.
I've been very impressed with some low ELO ranked members and often quite shocked at the tactics of high ELO ranked members.
Your CIVIL DEBATE ranking is a direct reflection of your open-mindedness (and experience) and willingness to entertain and explore ideas you don't necessarily agree with.
Trolls and Zealots will likely be repulsed by the entire idea of CIVIL DEBATE and will gravitate to ELO like they do now.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Without experience there can exist no knowledge.Experience precedes thought ergo knowledge.
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I currently have a 100% win rate. If all my debates to date were scored in the method you suggest that would fall to a 12.5% win rate, most would be ties with no points awarded and maybe one or two losses.
A CIVIL DEBATE ranking of 11/22 would indicate that individual has given out 11 points to others and has received 22 points for themselves.
Your "win rate" would be practically meaningless in a CIVIL DEBATE framework.
The entire structure is engineered to enhance the arguments of both participants (instead of tearing one down and building one up, which promotes polarization).
Have you encountered any arguments that lead you to rethink or retool (sharpen) your own ideas?
Would you be averse to giving those participants some token credit for contributing to your intellectual skill?
Wouldn't you want to seek out debates with individuals who show a consistent ability and willingness to help others refine their arguments and who are willing to acknowledge when their own arguments have been strengthened by yours?
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Ok, so you're saying that this civil debate rating is separate from the ELO, right?
Yes.
In that case, it might work. But then there's the issue of overgiving points, if it will lead to a better reception for them.
Someone who is generous in awarding points would "lose" a lot of debates, but they would be an excellent sounding board (sharpening stone) for your arguments.
I propose a hard limit on the number of points that can be awarded per round, starting at 3 per round, but perhaps if you believe "generosity" might be an unfair strategy, you might prefer a cap of 1 point per round?
Generally I believe most players will be hesitant to award points to their opponent, and so each point earned will be hard-won and meaningful (making the ranking more meaningful).
But ultimately it will be up to the participants themselves to decide what constitutes a "good point".
Created:
-->
@simplybeourselves
Whatever the nature of a rock is it still has whatever nature it has. A thing is what it is.
This is the very definition of "naive realism".
GOD = GOD, THEREFORE GOD EXISTS.
Do you consider this statement impervious to examination?
Or do you consider this statement blatant question-begging?
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Sure but even an agreement wouldn't really be enough given we all could be perceiving things different to what they actually are. Kinda difficult to explain but here is my example:
I see, so, do you think it would be fair to say you believe in "objective truth"?
Do you believe that "objective truth" is "truly true" independent of any form of human verification?
And if you do believe in "objective truth", can you please give me an example of something you believe qualifies as an "objective truth"?
Created:
-->
@simplybeourselves
I don't agree that a thing has to be detectable empirically by us for it to exist.
I agree.
An extant "thing" must be (EITHER) detectable empirically (OR) logically necessary (and probably both).
Otherwise you throw the door wide open to unsupportable (unfalsifiable) claims (appeals to ignorance) asserting the "existence" of ghosts, goblins, banshees, and lochnessbigfootaliens.
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
You've made excellent points.
Imagine if the CIVIL DEBATE ranking was a combination of two scores, OUTbound points and INbound points.
A CIVIL DEBATE ranking of 11/22 would indicate that individual has given out 11 points to others and has received 22 points for themselves.
When looking for a debate partner, if you noticed their CIVIL DEBATE ranking was 6/232, you would imagine they're probably an unfair (closed minded) opponent.
You'd naturally look for someone with ranking more like 44/64 which would indicate a much more charitable individual.
Each individual CIVIL DEBATE "win" would not boost your ranking in-and-of-itself. A "high win-ratio" would mean nothing.
I'd even propose giving people the option to preemptively disqualify opponents with less than 10% (or 20%, or 30%) outbound points relative to their inbound points.
In the same way that DebateArt currently lets people preemptively disqualify opponents with a low (or high) ELO score or with fewer than X number of debates total.
This ranking system would promote cooperation and real intellectual exploration. And the split scoring would make it easy to choose the type of opponent you'd like to challenge.
No noob sniping. No dirty tricks. No semantic shenanigans. Just reasonable people presenting their best arguments for honest scrutiny.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
He's saying that debating as a sport should be abolished, it should solely be about seeking truth and never about playing devil's advocate or pride in one's Rating.
Kinda-sorta-correct.
Playing "devil's advocate" would not be ruled-out.
The key take-away is that your CIVIL DEBATE ranking would be a direct reflection of your ability to present cogent arguments that are appropriately phrased (custom tailored) for your specific opponents.
For example, you might be awarded a point for STEEL-MANNING your opponent's case (even if you disagree with it).
This would dis-incentivize STRAW-MANNING your opponent's case because you're very unlikely to earn a "good point" for your effort.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I don't think the above suggestion is the best way to go about that though.
Please explain if you believe the proposed CIVIL DEBATE framework is "less wrong" than the current system.
There is no reason they couldn't be run in parallel.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
So if I understand you right you are saying that the problem is that the voters are all biased in favor of one debater or the other and your solution is to make the debaters themselves be the voters...
Yes, and your CIVIL DEBATE ranking would be simply a running total of points you've be awarded by your opponents.
That way, even ties could boost both participant's ranking and there would be no problems with debates with zero votes (and no "win loss" ratio).
Your CIVIL DEBATE ranking would be a direct reflection of your ability to present cogent arguments that are appropriately phrased (custom tailored) for your specific opponents.
Created:
-->
@Barney
What happens when I have the clearly more logical position and arguments and my opponent simply doesn't acknowledge this,Intuitively, you would probably give yourself 3 points for your quality arguments, and they would give themselves 7 points for having called you a Nazi.
You can only award points to your opponent, not to yourself.
So, if you believe your opponent made any points that caused you to reconsider (sharpen or reevaluate) your own position, you have the option (not the obligation) to award them points for those specific statements.
Yes, you might find yourself in a situation where your opponent refuses to award you any points, and you would have the option to do the same.
This outcome would be equivalent to a tie in the current system (and not simply a popularity contest).
I generally award at least 1 point for participation, and in my proposed CIVIL DEBATE ranking system, that would not count against my "ranking" (it would not reduce my running total points tally).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@simplybeourselves
> It's just the case that if an immoral action really is an action that leads to the outcome with the most overall suffering then even if we could never have any knowledge of such an outcome or measure it in any way whatsoever then that doesn't change the fact that it's still the case that an immoral action really is an action that leads to the outcome with the most overall suffering.
Do you believe the Bubonic plague was "bad"?
Do you believe the Bubonic plague increased or decreased "overall suffering"?
Created:
-->
@simplybeourselves
I gave a tautology and you responded with "nope". I will simply correct you and tell you that you must not know what a tautology is if you think that the statement "a rock is a rock" is not a tautology then you're simply wrong.
I most certainly responded with more than a "nope".
The claim, "a rock is a rock" is meaningless circular logic.
The claim, "a rock exists even if humans never observe it directly or indirectly" is simply an unsupported claim (not a tautology) that begs for your preferred definition of "exists" to be made explicit (among other things).
For example,
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Not possible. Unless you change the definition of universality or have a logic which claims it is universal during or before that you would have to agree with it.
What's your definition of "universality"?
Do you believe "universality" is only what "all humans" find "undeniable"?
Or would your "universality" extend to all animals and hypothetical alien life forms?
Created:
-->
@simplybeourselves
A noumenon has to be a thing for it to be anything at all, as far as I'm concerned. Either there is a such thing as X or there isn't. And "There's no such thing as X" equates to "X doesn't exist". Either the noumenon is a thing or it is nothing at all.
I like where you're going with this.
NOUMENON is a special case.
In order for a "thing" to properly "exist" we must have some way of detecting it empirically, either directly or indirectly.
NOUMENON is not detectable empirically, but it is LOGICALLY NECESSARY.
We only "know" of NOUMENON, because we can deduce that we DO NOT currently know "everything".
Therefore, NOUMENON "exists" more like a category, and less like an actual "thing" (even though it may contain currently undetected things).
Created:
-->
@simplybeourselves
I gave a tautology, which is a necessarily true statement,
Nope. You failed to make your definitions explicit.
And because you failed to make your definitions explicit, you've inadvertently made an "appeal to common sense", which is a naked "appeal to ignorance".
Created:
-->
@simplybeourselves
I said that the fundamentals of logic are analytic. I didn't say that all logic was analytic.
How do you know this?
Created:
-->
@Barney
@Discipulus_Didicit
@PressF4Respect
@fauxlaw
Analyzing a debate where both debaters are competent and all of the arguments are well-thought-out is tedious and time-consuming, without much in return. Very few people have the time and mental energy to do this and write-up a sufficiently detailed RFD on an informal debate website. Furthermore, as people generally take the path of action with the least resistance, they will inevitably vote for the least mentally taxing debates, as they only have to put in a fraction of the work to get the same results.
I was originally very excited to participate in ranked debates, but I quickly learned that no matter how "logical" and "objective" the voting guidelines were believed to be, the actual judges themselves are incapable of acknowledging their own bias blind spot.
I have proposed an option for debates be "self-moderated", that is to say that only the two participants in each debate are allowed to vote.
This way, the goal of the debate is to ACTUALLY CONVINCE YOUR DEBATE PARTNER and not simply make them look silly in order to sway an audience.
It seems like such an insanely simple solution to what many consider "a virtually intractable problem".
That way both participants could score points accumulated per round, awarded at the discretion of their co-debater. When someone makes "a good point", their co-debater would have the option to award them "1 point".
The end result would be a RANKING SCORE (perhaps in parallel to the current ELO, or perhaps added like a sort-able attribute like "win ratio") that would reflect how many "good points" that have been acknowledged by that individual's co-debaters (with perhaps some max points cap per round (like 3 per round perhaps).
Then even a tie could boost the rankings of both participants.
I like to call this system CIVIL DEBATE and it has just three simple "rules" (guidelines).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@simplybeourselves
A secret, invisible, unknowable, unreliable or purposely unrevealed measure of "total suffering" is indistinguishable from "no measure".
Such a standard is of no practical use.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@simplybeourselves
To me a morally wrong action is an action that increases overall suffering in the long run.
This (consequentialism) seems rather difficult to quantify.
There was a farmer who one day left his stable door ajar and his horse wandered away.
His neighbor notes, "it is a terrible thing that you forgot to secure your stable, for now you have lost your only horse."
The farmer doesn't reply.
A few days later his horse returned with a wild horse.
His neighbor is surprised and exclaims, "it is a wonderful thing that you forgot to secure your stable! Because now you have two horses!"
The farmer doesn't reply.
A week later the farmer's son is training the new horse and is thrown onto a rock and breaks his leg.
The neighbor sympathetically comments, "it is a terrible thing that you forgot to secure your stable, because now your son is lame."
The farmer doesn't reply.
The next year their king declares war and forcibly recruits all of the able bodied young men to fight.
The neighbor chuckles, "it is a wonderful thing that you forgot to secure your stable, because your son, being lame, will not have to face the horrors of battle."
The farmer doesn't reply.
Created:
-->
@simplybeourselves
Because a rock is still a rock regardless of if humans are around to observe it.
Nice, the old "argumentum ad lapidem".
I understand we find it easy, in fact, it's intuitive and downright "obvious" that "things" "exist" "independent of observation and evidence".
But what you seem to be missing is that this "common sense" (a priori "fact") is a de facto philosophy in-and-of-itself, namely Naive Objectivism (naive realism).
Any "thing" we don't have evidence of is an aspect of NOUMENON.
Part of the NOUMENON is potentially "knowable", Mysterium Invisus and part of it is fundamentally unknowable, Magnum Mysterium.
I'd say that "existence" is probably not the best word to describe noumenon (mainly because the definition of "exists" requires empirical verifiability). I believe it is a mistake to imagine noumenon as some sort of "thing" when it is merely an amorphous concept that acts as a place-holder for both "what we don't currently know" (Mysterium Invisus) and "what may be fundamentally unknowable" (Magnum Mysterium). For example, noumenon might be eleventy-trillion layers of sci-fi multiverse, noumenon might be an elaborate alien computer simulation, noumenon might be Brahma's dream, noumenon might be a single super-intelligent (but not omniscient) demiurge that we humans are merely appendages of. In all likelihood, it is conceptually, literally, ultimately and completely beyond our ability to comprehend. All of this makes it very very very difficult for me to believe that we can consider (with any degree of confidence whatsoever) that noumenon is itself comprised of 100% pure, uncut, "objective reality". I mean since noumenon may involve a great many (likely) possibly subjective layers (simulation/dream/multiverse) below our primitive perceptions, although we can deduce with the confidence afforded us by our logic, that there must be, at some level, "real" and "true" and "objective" "reality", we cannot have any confidence that what we are able to perceive has anything-at-all to do with the-hypothetical-objective-essence directly. It's like the old story of the princess and the pea. Clearly there is "something" under the bed, but what are the chances that a normal person would be able to detect it through ninety-nine high-quality mattresses(?).
Created:
-->
@simplybeourselves
The fundamentals of logic are analytic whereas empiricism is fundamentally synthetic.
ANALYTIC
"separating something into component parts or constituent elements"
SYNTHETIC
"attributing to a subject something determined by observation rather than analysis of the nature of the subject and not resulting in self-contradiction if negated"
This sounds like, "Solve et Coagula".
“Solve” or “solutio” refers to the breaking down of elements and “Coagula” refers to their coming together.
One is "reductive" and the other is "constructive".
Logic demands we employ both.
Empirical (synthetic) experience is meaningless without drawing some conclusions about whatever phenomenon is observed.
Logical (analytic) conclusion is meaningless without some reference to observable (empirical/synthetic) correlation.
These are inter-dependent concepts (perhaps you've heard of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems).
Created:
-->
@simplybeourselves
The laws of logic don't require any knowledge of them.
How do you know this?
Created:
-->
@simplybeourselves
...a thing would still be a thing even if we didn't exist to have empirical evidence of it.
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
Any "thing" that "exists" without "evidence" is an aspect of NOUMENON.
Created:
-->
@simplybeourselves
...but to do so is to simply kid yourself rather than to say anything substantive.
Please "say anything substantive" that makes a coherent distinction between "empiricism" and "logic".
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Basically what we agree upon isn't what i consider to be concrete. If it is based on people agreeing with each other then it can simply change with a different group of people. A synonym of concrete would be universal if it wasn't clear on what I mean is concrete.
It sounds like you're pursuing APODICTIC TRUTH.
And good luck discovering APODICTIC TRUTH without engaging in "philosophy".
Created:
-->
@simplybeourselves
But even if your example argument was sufficient, as you seem to believe it is, that would already show that philosophy can give concrete answers because the point is that this problem of free will doesn't require any scientific evidence and it's a truth that can be discovered truly a priori. Whether free will is real or not is a substantive and concrete question that can be answered through philosophy and without doing any science.
Logic itself is based on empirical observation. One of the very first things we learn as infants is "cause and effect".
Free-will is merely an emotion we feel when making (apparently) uncoerced "decisions".
Every "free-will" "decision" we make is (EITHER) based on historical influences (OR) totally "random" (disconnected from historical influences).
Is a "random" consequence an act of "will"?
Is a deliberate act of will "free"?
The entire premise of "free-will" is logically incoherent.
Created:
-->
@Christen
That looks like a rare case or something. I haven't seen that fallacy committed yet, or maybe I did but missed it due to it's obscurity.
It is the most pervasive and insidious logical fallacy.
"A statement is considered necessarily true if and only if it is impossible for the statement to be untrue and that there is no situation that would cause the statement to be false." - This is also known as APODICTIC TRUTH.
ethang5 has built their entire philosophical foundation on this fallacy (conflating opinion with fact, which is a category error, also known as "the modal fallacy").
Created:
-->
@Christen
Here's a good one,
The formal fallacy of the modal fallacy is a special type of fallacy that occurs in modal logic. It is the fallacy of placing a proposition in the wrong modal scope,[1] most commonly confusing the scope of what is necessarily true. A statement is considered necessarily true if and only if it is impossible for the statement to be untrue and that there is no situation that would cause the statement to be false. Some philosophers further argue that a necessarily true statement must be true in all possible worlds. [WIKI]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Does anyone function/act without reason?
Every action has a logical cause. I believe we are in agreement on this.
A reason to act is either deemed to be reasonable or perceived to be unreasonable or vice versa.
(IFF) an action by yourself or by another person or entity is apparently incoherent (inconsistent with explicitly stated goals of that party and or common customs implicitly or explicitly agreed upon by both parties) to the either party (AND) the acting party refuses to reveal their reasons for their action (THEN) the acting party that refuses to explain their action is functionally indistinguishable from an UNREASONABLE person or entity.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Please provide a specific example of either a figurative "truth" or metaphorical "truth".If you cannot see truth in figurative and metaphorical works...
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Figurative does not necessarily mean false.
(IFF) REAL-TRUE-FACT = empirically verifiable and or logically necessary (THEN) figurative and metaphorical statements do not qualify, they are not necessarily verifiably FALSE, but they are functionally indistinguishable from FALSE (either "not true" or "neither true nor false" falling into the realm of personal opinion).
And literal does not necessarily mean true.
(IFF) REAL-TRUE-FACT = empirically verifiable and or logically necessary (AND) literal statements = empirically verifiable and or logically necessary (THEN) literal statements must always be REAL-TRUE-FACTS.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Who do you personally believe is the most reliable "authority" on the subject of "interpreting the word of god",The Bible itself.
Conflict of interest. Circular reasoning.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
You've contradicted yourself here.Untrue. Post #4 says nothing about the veracity of the bible. It only says that the claim that it must be taken as completely figurative [FALSE] or as completely literal [TRUE] is illogical.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
(IFF) you believe the claim that "the bible is the 100% factually true word of a perfect god" is functionally indistinguishable from FALSE (THEN) we are in agreement regarding this particular claim.
The "bible" refers to 66 separate books with different authors written over a period of 6,000+ years. Each part of the bible does not necessarily carry all the qualities of the whole.
Sure, no problem. Do you believe ANY of the "66 separate books" that comprise "the bible" are "the 100% factually true word of a perfect god"?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
You're the one who brought it up. [POST#4]Sometimes we want to discuss things other than is the bible/god true? If you can't discuss other things than that, get out of the way and let people with broader interests talk.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
So how do you explain the FUNDAMENTAL differences in interpretation...Same way I explain all FUNDAMENTAL differences in interpretation. Different people, different experiences, bias, hidden agendas, insanity, low IQ.
Who do you personally believe is the most reliable "authority" on the subject of "interpreting the word of god", the normal, unbiased, non-anti-theist RABBIS (OR) the normal, unbiased, non-anti-theist CATHOLIC PRIESTS (OR) the normal, unbiased, non-anti-theist BAPTIST PREACHERS (OR) the normal, unbiased, non-anti-theist ESSENES (OR) some other "authority" I've neglected to mention?
Created: